Conservatives donate more than Liberal

[cmartyn 0]

Why do that when you can toss out a wedge issue and wrap yourself up in the flag. Its worked so well for the neo-cons in the past you shouldn't expect them to stop any time soon.

[mrsushi66 0]

This is a problem with idiots in the US. Why is a republican automatically labeled a conservative and a Democrat automatically labeled a liberal?

I don't know but these seem to be labels you use a lot.

It'd sure be nice to discuss issues on their own merits and not divide them along imaginary ideological lines.

Kind of tough to do when the topic of the post has the ideological lines drawn in the subject line.

The post would have had to have been posted with a subject more along the lines. Charities and social programs, Government or Private? But my interpretation of the post is that it was more about a conservative trying to show how the liberals are all talk and no substance. Pretty hard to have an intelectual discussion about something when the premise of the discussion is already slanted towards an ideological camp.

To say ideological lines are imaginary is a bit simplistic, while I think I know what you are trying to get at you can't separate someone from their ideas unless they are open to the possability that there is another point of view that they may not agree with but is still valid. Once people buy into the rhetoric and propaganda of their particular ideological camp they are pretty much lost until they are willing to discuss things on an intelectual level rather than a I am right you are wrong level. Or worse yet in terms of absolutes. After all the only absolutes are zero, death, and taxes.

Pretty tough to do on a public forum but there is always hope.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is a problem with idiots in the US. Why is a republican automatically labeled a conservative and a Democrat automatically labeled a liberal?

I don't know but these seem to be labels you use a lot.

It'd sure be nice to discuss issues on their own merits and not divide them along imaginary ideological lines.

Kind of tough to do when the topic of the post has the ideological lines drawn in the subject line.

The post would have had to have been posted with a subject more along the lines. Charities and social programs, Government or Private? But my interpretation of the post is that it was more about a conservative trying to show how the liberals are all talk and no substance. Pretty hard to have an intelectual discussion about something when the premise of the discussion is already slanted towards an ideological camp.

To say ideological lines are imaginary is a bit simplistic, while I think I know what you are trying to get at you can't separate someone from their ideas unless they are open to the possability that there is another point of view that they may not agree with but is still valid. Once people buy into the rhetoric and propaganda of their particular ideological camp they are pretty much lost until they are willing to discuss things on an intelectual level rather than a I am right you are wrong level. Or worse yet in terms of absolutes. After all the only absolutes are zero, death, and taxes.

Pretty tough to do on a public forum but there is always hope.

[Fandango 1,439]

That's hardly scientific. What is this unnamed "Conservative City"? How can you be sure the people donating in one box were conservative and the other liberal?

Oh, I'm sorry, I used the "S" word. Xtian conservatives don't like that word, just like they don't like the "E" word.

Why would Christians be against science?

To be honest one of the main reasons my beliefs shifted center-right is because of seeing how selfish so many liberals I know are. Quite a few people I know living in NY and CA are obsessed with what they are driving or what they are wearing or what he/she said or about making money or about about how they look or what surgery they can spend $10K to $20K on to make themselves look better.

I myself lived the liberal lifestyle for quite a while. Going to clubs like Studio 54 in Vegas for example and running up $2k tabs. One day it just hit me. I thought there must be more to life than this #######. More than a life of me me me me and me.

Anyway most conservatives who give their time and money do not do it for the publicity or recognition from others.

And yet someone comes here to toot the horn of the conservative republican!!! So what part of the above bold and underline statment is just a bit hypocritical!!

Helping people through rough times is a human thing not a party or lable thing. You either get it or you do not. I could care less what lable you slap on your A$$ either help people or don't. The people who benefit from these programs could probably give a rats A$$ about liberal, conservative, repub, dem. They care about putting food on the table and a roof over their head.

It's called 'putting your money where your mouth is'....something that is not taken too kindly by some posters here

The issue here is that liberals expect the government to donate to charities, while conservatives prefer to donate their own time and money..

Ding ding ding! Give this man a prize!

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Yet most conservative religious groups have tax-exempt status -- the government still helps them!

[Heracles 417]

Yet most conservative religious groups have tax-exempt status -- the government still helps them!

That is besides the point. We are beating around the bush here.

This is just more proof that liberals like to discredit or play dumb to any piece of information against them. Yet are first to condemn a conservative, irrespective of the information.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Yet most conservative religious groups have tax-exempt status -- the government still helps them!

That is besides the point. We are beating around the bush here.

This is just more proof that liberals like to discredit or play dumb to any piece of information against them. Yet are first to condemn a conservative, irrespective of the information.

Oh please! Maybe your problem is you don't have an answer for the fact that religious groups, in a way, receive government support. And many of them would struggle to exist without tax exempt status -- I know groups I have worked with (through the Catholic church) would have suffered without that.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Yet most conservative religious groups have tax-exempt status -- the government still helps them!

That is besides the point. We are beating around the bush here.

This is just more proof that liberals like to discredit or play dumb to any piece of information against them. Yet are first to condemn a conservative, irrespective of the information.

I've yet to meet an 'honest' liberal.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yet most conservative religious groups have tax-exempt status -- the government still helps them!

That is besides the point. We are beating around the bush here.

This is just more proof that liberals like to discredit or play dumb to any piece of information against them. Yet are first to condemn a conservative, irrespective of the information.

I've yet to meet an 'honest' liberal.

How do you know when you've met one? Do they have 'liberal' tattooed on their forehead? Are Americans really divided along such contrasting ideological lines?

It's called 'putting your money where your mouth is'....something that is not taken too kindly by some posters here

Your density is boundless.

Blogdom in particular seems like a gigantesque ad hominem buzzing hivemind at times. So and so in the political world says something or another with self-righteousness (William Bennett, Claude Allen, George Bush, ####### Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, etc., etc.), and then they do something that contradicts what they've been saying! This is easy. It's always easy, no matter the political persuasion. It preys on simple political emotions, turning politics into sports. Pop the popcorn, pop open a beer, cheer the smackdown pops, check out Janet Jackson a-popping at halftime - look closely at the breast, but disdain its presence there for all to see. Sometimes it feels good to call someone else an idiot because they say one thing in one context and something else in another or even change their mind. Makes you feel strong, manly, right, just, consistent, and above the fray of poor logic and the guano-stained batcave of political rhetoric.

http://phronesisaical.blogspot.com/2006/03...olitics_12.html

[peezey 0]

Did anyone watch 20/20 last night and notice how they discovered that conservatives donate more than liberals? Conservatives also volunteer more of their time for other people / charities. Yet 'apparently' liberals like Paris Hilton are for the people.

They actually conducted a test where they setup a charity box outside a department store in Chicago and also another outside a department store in a conservative city. Not to my surprise they received double the donations from the conservative city, than Chicago. That is even though the highly liberal people of Chicago earn twice the average salary of the conservative city.

So you didn't actually watch the show, then. The liberal city was San Francisco, and I hardly think you could have forgotten this since they went into great detail about the demographics of the city & its history as a liberal icon.

To be honest one of the main reasons my beliefs shifted center-right is because of seeing how selfish so many liberals I know are. Quite a few people I know living in NY and CA are obsessed with what they are driving or what they are wearing or what he/she said or about making money or about about how they look or what surgery they can spend $10K to $20K on to make themselves look better.

I myself lived the liberal lifestyle for quite a while. Going to clubs like Studio 54 in Vegas for example and running up $2k tabs. One day it just hit me. I thought there must be more to life than this #######. More than a life of me me me me and me.

Anyway most conservatives who give their time and money do not do it for the publicity or recognition from others.

Why in the hell is living with expensive tastes the "liberal lifestyle"? First of all, there are significant numbers of conservatives in CA in very rich areas, so your assertion that liberal are using money to look good is spurious. Ever seen "The Real OC"? Check it out, not a liberal in the bunch, but plenty of huge cars, homes, fake boobs, fake faces.

[Cassie 8]

I watched this show, and found it very interesting, yet annoying with the liberal/conservative label thrown on it.

[peezey 0]

But the general argument made here was that Conservatives want charity to be voluntary and now you're saying short term help (charity) from the government isn't wrong. I agree that it should be a short term thing. What gets me is the intellectual dishonesty here that suggests that it's simply an issue of voluntary vs. mandatory (in the form of taxation).

The issue here is that liberals expect the government to donate to charities, while conservatives prefer to donate their own time and money..

You also must have missed the part that the so-called conservative town that collected "more" money (never once did they say how much), is a religious town. The statistics the author spoke about included giving money to churches, which I think throws off the numbers entirely. Money going to churches doesn't all go to charity.

There maybe some statistical evidence that 'republicans' give more than 'liberals' That does not give every republican the right to gloat or to bad mouth all 'liberals' The labels to me are ridiculous anyway.

The point about charitable contributions should be that they are between you and your conscience.

OP, what is your point exactly? I read an entire article which referenced the book "In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism by Arthur C. Brooks where the predominant point was the giving to charities was more to do with religion than politics. (To be noted, he is an adherent to the Catholic faith)

"Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals"..."

What I find disappointing is that if this is true having a charitable mind set is linked to religion. How sad.

This is exactly what was said in the stupid John Stossel ####### last night (I hate that guy). There is no comparison unless you correct for money given to churches that does not find it's way to charity.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

So you didn't actually watch the show, then. The liberal city was San Francisco, and I hardly think you could have forgotten this since they went into great detail about the demographics of the city & its history as a liberal icon.

Interesting -- I did not see the show but I had a hard time seeing chicago as some sort of bastion of liberalism. What was the so-called "conservative city"

[peezey 0]

Yet most conservative religious groups have tax-exempt status -- the government still helps them!

That is besides the point. We are beating around the bush here.

This is just more proof that liberals like to discredit or play dumb to any piece of information against them. Yet are first to condemn a conservative, irrespective of the information.

The information was b.s. had you listened to the piece in its entirety or listened to the author explain that the reason conservatives give more is because they give to churches, you might think differently.

My other huge issues with this is that a #######-a$$ charity like United Way goes into factories, large businesses, etc, and gets people to donate via direct debit from their paycheck. So Joe Worker gives $10 a check which is $260 a year. Have you seen this? It's a majorly hard sell, making you feel guilty if you don't want to give "just $10" a check. I wouldn't give to the UW if my life depended on it, but does everyone know what a crappy charity they are? Or were they pressured to do so?

[Cassie 8]

But the general argument made here was that Conservatives want charity to be voluntary and now you're saying short term help (charity) from the government isn't wrong. I agree that it should be a short term thing. What gets me is the intellectual dishonesty here that suggests that it's simply an issue of voluntary vs. mandatory (in the form of taxation).

The issue here is that liberals expect the government to donate to charities, while conservatives prefer to donate their own time and money..

You also must have missed the part that the so-called conservative town that collected "more" money (never once did they say how much), is a religious town. The statistics the author spoke about included giving money to churches, which I think throws off the numbers entirely. Money going to churches doesn't all go to charity.

There maybe some statistical evidence that 'republicans' give more than 'liberals' That does not give every republican the right to gloat or to bad mouth all 'liberals' The labels to me are ridiculous anyway.

The point about charitable contributions should be that they are between you and your conscience.

OP, what is your point exactly? I read an entire article which referenced the book "In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism by Arthur C. Brooks where the predominant point was the giving to charities was more to do with religion than politics. (To be noted, he is an adherent to the Catholic faith)

"Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals"..."

What I find disappointing is that if this is true having a charitable mind set is linked to religion. How sad.

This is exactly what was said in the stupid John Stossel ####### last night (I hate that guy). There is no comparison unless you correct for money given to churches that does not find it's way to charity.

Being a Christian and a faithful giver to my church, I personally was interested to see if they would break down the numbers to differentiate between church contributions and other charitable donations. Then again, that might have been difficult, seeing as they would have to set down some guidelines to determine how much of every dollar contributed to a church goes to administration, programs for church members, or to charitable programs sponsored by the church. Oh well.